Culture Wars

[BDKJMU]

Wow, Oregon had a lunatic woke trans ideologist adoption law.

[Caribbean Hen]

Why would anyone send their kids to schools with these hyper partisan TDS NEA loons? If you want to call Trump a fascist maybe you learn to spell it 1st.

And another ad for homeschooling.

I always curious about “educated” younger people not being that smart

The fact is our test scores have been going down ever since the department of education was formed back in 1979.

[kalm]

Yeah…all those nasty liberals protesting ICE and preaching wokeness are the problem for Latinas.

Most latinos Don’t want those thugs in the country and totally support Trump for deporting their rotten asses.

Just one more thing you and the Democrats got wrong

Link to a poll?

This must be why we see zero Latinos protesting or speaking out against ICE.

[Caribbean Hen]

Most latinos Don’t want those thugs in the country and totally support Trump for deporting their rotten asses.

Just one more thing you and the Democrats got wrong

Link to a poll?

This must be why we see zero Latinos protesting or speaking out against ICE.

No poll

The election

[kalm]

Link to a poll?

This must be why we see zero Latinos protesting or speaking out against ICE.

No poll

The election

Right. So your statement on current sentiment was pulled out of your keester.

[UNI88]

[Caribbean Hen]

No poll

The election

Right. So your statement on current sentiment was pulled out of your keester.

No not at all

Either you’re oblivious or haven’t been paying attention

[kalm]

Right. So your statement on current sentiment was pulled out of your keester.

No not at all

Either you’re oblivious or haven’t been paying attention

Oh….so it’s another CH man-on-the-street poll.

Highly scientific.

[BDKJMU]

[Caribbean Hen]

No not at all

Either you’re oblivious or haven’t been paying attention

Oh….so it’s another CH man-on-the-street poll.

Highly scientific.

All polls should be conducted in the streets.

Everyone questioned should be on video and their geographic footprint should be published. Oh and of course we would be able to see what color their hair is.

[kalm]

Oh….so it’s another CH man-on-the-street poll.

Highly scientific.

All polls should be conducted in the streets.

Everyone questioned should be on video and their geographic footprint should be published. Oh and of course we would be able to see what color their hair is.

There’s just a little more to accurate polling than that.

[UNI88]

Republicans May Come to Regret Trump’s Columbia Shakedown

This deal has been widely called a “settlement,” but it’s not really a legal settlement in any traditional sense. It’s more like a capitulation to extralegal bullying tactics seemingly designed to punish Columbia for speech that this administration doesn’t like.
...
“The agreement gives legal form to an extortion scheme—the first of its kind!—that defies the relevant statutes as well as the constitutional separation of powers and the First Amendment.” And he adds: “The federal government is seeking to reshape the internal operations of universities not through generally applicable directives, but rather through a series of bilateral ‘deals.’ The Trump administration has made clear that while Columbia is first in line, it intends to reach comparable agreements with other schools—to scale the Columbia shakedown into a broader model of managing universities deemed too woke.”

That really spoke to me, because I kept thinking about what happens if, in four years, the AOC administration decided to illegally cut off millions of dollars in federal funding to Baylor or another Christian university that receives federal tax dollars, and says: “Until you get rid of your Christian Studies department and guarantee absolute equality for LGBTQ students through a series of initiatives that we will either approve or disapprove, then you will no longer have access to the money that Congress has appropriated for you through the constitutional process.” I think the reaction wouldn’t be so swell on the right [even though this sets the precedent for it]. Yet here you see the right jumping up and down with delight that the Trump administration has completely circumvented federal law and the First Amendment in order to force Columbia to toe the Trump line and bring its policies closer to what Trump would want if Trump University had actually taken off.

The unintended consequences of trump's "settlement" with Columbia University.

[kalm]

Republicans May Come to Regret Trump’s Columbia Shakedown

This deal has been widely called a “settlement,” but it’s not really a legal settlement in any traditional sense. It’s more like a capitulation to extralegal bullying tactics seemingly designed to punish Columbia for speech that this administration doesn’t like.
...
“The agreement gives legal form to an extortion scheme—the first of its kind!—that defies the relevant statutes as well as the constitutional separation of powers and the First Amendment.” And he adds: “The federal government is seeking to reshape the internal operations of universities not through generally applicable directives, but rather through a series of bilateral ‘deals.’ The Trump administration has made clear that while Columbia is first in line, it intends to reach comparable agreements with other schools—to scale the Columbia shakedown into a broader model of managing universities deemed too woke.”

That really spoke to me, because I kept thinking about what happens if, in four years, the AOC administration decided to illegally cut off millions of dollars in federal funding to Baylor or another Christian university that receives federal tax dollars, and says: “Until you get rid of your Christian Studies department and guarantee absolute equality for LGBTQ students through a series of initiatives that we will either approve or disapprove, then you will no longer have access to the money that Congress has appropriated for you through the constitutional process.” I think the reaction wouldn’t be so swell on the right [even though this sets the precedent for it]. Yet here you see the right jumping up and down with delight that the Trump administration has completely circumvented federal law and the First Amendment in order to force Columbia to toe the Trump line and bring its policies closer to what Trump would want if Trump University had actually taken off.

The unintended consequences of trump's "settlement" with Columbia University.

They may end up regretting many things.

[BDKJMU]

This deal has been widely called a “settlement,” but it’s not really a legal settlement in any traditional sense. It’s more like a capitulation to extralegal bullying tactics seemingly designed to punish Columbia for speech that this administration doesn’t like.
...
“The agreement gives legal form to an extortion scheme—the first of its kind!—that defies the relevant statutes as well as the constitutional separation of powers and the First Amendment.” And he adds: “The federal government is seeking to reshape the internal operations of universities not through generally applicable directives, but rather through a series of bilateral ‘deals.’ The Trump administration has made clear that while Columbia is first in line, it intends to reach comparable agreements with other schools—to scale the Columbia shakedown into a broader model of managing universities deemed too woke.”

That really spoke to me, because I kept thinking about what happens if, in four years, the AOC administration decided to illegally cut off millions of dollars in federal funding to Baylor or another Christian university that receives federal tax dollars, and says: “Until you get rid of your Christian Studies department and guarantee absolute equality for LGBTQ students through a series of initiatives that we will either approve or disapprove, then you will no longer have access to the money that Congress has appropriated for you through the constitutional process.” I think the reaction wouldn’t be so swell on the right [even though this sets the precedent for it. Yet here you see the right jumping up and down with delight that the Trump administration has completely circumvented federal law and the First Amendment in order to force Columbia to toe the Trump line and bring its policies closer to what Trump would want if Trump University had actually taken off.Republicans May Come to Regret Trump’s Columbia Shakedown

The unintended consequences of trump's "settlement" with Columbia University.

They may end up regretting many things.

[kalm]

I’m sure it was “research” for waging his crusade against porn.

But what is Chaya Raichik / @/libsoftiktok who you appointed to a State of Oklahoma Dept. of Ed Library Media Advisory Committee gonna think?

[UNI88]

Trump memo allows federal workers to persuade coworkers their religion is ‘correct’

What would they do if someone put this on their wall?


Or this book on their desk?


Or this one?

[kalm]

Trump memo allows federal workers to persuade coworkers their religion is ‘correct’

What would they do if someone put this on their wall?


Or this book on their desk?


Or this one?

They have zero answer for this.

BTW…Greer is a fascinating writer.

[UNI88]

Trump memo allows federal workers to persuade coworkers their religion is ‘correct’

What would they do if someone put this on their wall?


Or this book on their desk?


Or this one?

They have zero answer for this.

BTW…Greer is a fascinating writer.

I'd be rolling out a mat and using salt to make an outline of an upside down star to summon demons during my break.

I'd also have these books in case anyone wants to argue that the founding fathers were Christians

[kalm]

They have zero answer for this.

BTW…Greer is a fascinating writer.

I'd be rolling out a mat and using salt to make an outline of an upside down star to summon demons during my break.

I'd also have these books in case anyone wants to argue that the founding fathers were Christians

Thank god.

[Caribbean Hen]

Trump memo allows federal workers to persuade coworkers their religion is ‘correct’

What would they do if someone put this on their wall?


Or this book on their desk?


Or this one?

They have zero answer for this.

BTW…Greer is a fascinating writer.

If you don’t believe in God, why would you worship Satan?

[BDKJMU]

They have zero answer for this.

BTW…Greer is a fascinating writer.

I'd be rolling out a mat and using salt to make an outline of an upside down star to summon demons during my break.

I'd also have these books in case anyone wants to argue that the founding fathers were Christians

at anyone claiming that the Founding Fathers weren‘t Christian.

For some time the question of the religious faith of the Founding Fathers has generated a culture war in the United States. Scholars trained in research universities have generally argued that the majority of the Founders were religious rationalists or Unitarians. Pastors and other writers who identify themselves as Evangelicals have claimed not only that most of the Founders held orthodox beliefs but also that some were born-again Christians.

Whatever their beliefs, the Founders came from similar religious backgrounds. Most were Protestants. The largest number were raised in the three largest Christian traditions of colonial America—Anglicanism (as in the cases of John Jay, George Washington, and Edward Rutledge), Presbyterianism (as in the cases of Richard Stockton and the Rev. John Witherspoon), and Congregationalism (as in the cases of John Adams and Samuel Adams). Other Protestant groups included the Society of Friends (Quakers), the Lutherans, and the Dutch Reformed. Three Founders—Charles Carroll and Daniel Carroll of Maryland and Thomas Fitzsimmons of Pennsylvania—were of Roman Catholic heritage.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Fo ... ty-1272214

[kalm]

I'd be rolling out a mat and using salt to make an outline of an upside down star to summon demons during my break.

I'd also have these books in case anyone wants to argue that the founding fathers were Christians

at anyone claiming that the Founding Fathers weren‘t Christian.

For some time the question of the religious faith of the Founding Fathers has generated a culture war in the United States. Scholars trained in research universities have generally argued that the majority of the Founders were religious rationalists or Unitarians. Pastors and other writers who identify themselves as Evangelicals have claimed not only that most of the Founders held orthodox beliefs but also that some were born-again Christians.

Whatever their beliefs, the Founders came from similar religious backgrounds. Most were Protestants. The largest number were raised in the three largest Christian traditions of colonial America—Anglicanism (as in the cases of John Jay, George Washington, and Edward Rutledge), Presbyterianism (as in the cases of Richard Stockton and the Rev. John Witherspoon), and Congregationalism (as in the cases of John Adams and Samuel Adams). Other Protestant groups included the Society of Friends (Quakers), the Lutherans, and the Dutch Reformed. Three Founders—Charles Carroll and Daniel Carroll of Maryland and Thomas Fitzsimmons of Pennsylvania—were of Roman Catholic heritage.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Fo ... ty-1272214

You should have kept reading. From your same article:

The sweeping disagreement over the religious faiths of the Founders arises from a question of discrepancy. Did their private beliefs differ from the orthodox teachings of their churches? On the surface, most Founders appear to have been orthodox (or “right-believing”) Christians. Most were baptized, listed on church rolls, married to practicing Christians, and frequent or at least sporadic attenders of services of Christian worship. In public statements, most invoked divine assistance.


But the widespread existence in 18th-century America of a school of religious thought called Deism complicates the actual beliefs of the Founders. Drawing from the scientific and philosophical work of such figures as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Isaac Newton, and John Locke, Deists argued that human experience and rationality—rather than religious dogma and mystery—determine the validity of human beliefs. In his widely read The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine, the principal American exponent of Deism, called Christianity “a fable.” Paine, the protégé of Benjamin Franklin, denied “that the Almighty ever did communicate anything to man, by…speech,…language, or…vision.” Postulating a distant deity whom he called “Nature’s God” (a term also used in the Declaration of Independence), Paine declared in a “profession of faith”:


I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and in endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.
Thus, Deism inevitably subverted orthodox Christianity. Persons influenced by the movement had little reason to read the Bible, to pray, to attend church, or to participate in such rites as baptism, Holy Communion, and the laying on of hands (confirmation) by bishops. With the notable exceptions of Abigail Adams and Dolley Madison, Deism seems to have had little effect on women. For example, Martha Washington, the daughters of Thomas Jefferson, and Elizabeth Kortright Monroe and her daughters seem to have held orthodox Christian beliefs.


But Deistic thought was immensely popular in colleges from the middle of the 18th into the 19th century. Thus, it influenced many educated (as well as uneducated) males of the Revolutionary generation. Although such men would generally continue their public affiliation with Christianity after college, they might inwardly hold unorthodox religious views. Depending on the extent to which Americans of Christian background were influenced by Deism, their religious beliefs would fall into three categories: non-Christian Deism, Christian Deism, and orthodox Christianity.


One can differentiate a Founding Father influenced by Deism from an orthodox Christian believer by following certain criteria. Anyone seeking the answer should consider at least the following four points. First, an inquirer should examine the Founder’s church involvement. However, because a colonial church served not only religious but also social and political functions, church attendance or service in a governing body (such as an Anglican vestry, which was a state office in colonies such as Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina) fails to guarantee a Founder’s orthodoxy. But Founders who were believing Christians would nevertheless be more likely to go to church than those influenced by Deism.


The second consideration is an evaluation of the participation of a Founder in the ordinances or sacraments of his church. Most had no choice about being baptized as children, but as adults they did have a choice about participating in communion or (if Episcopalian or Roman Catholic) in confirmation. And few Founders who were Deists would have participated in either rite. George Washington’s refusal to receive communion in his adult life indicated Deistic belief to many of his pastors and peers.


Third, one should note the religious language a Founder used. Non-Christian Deists such as Paine refused to use Judeo-Christian terminology and described God with such expressions as “Providence,” “the Creator,” “the Ruler of Great Events,” and “Nature’s God.” Founders who fall into the category of Christian Deists used Deistic terms for God but sometimes added a Christian dimension—such as “Merciful Providence” or “Divine Goodness.” Yet these Founders did not move further into orthodoxy and employ the traditional language of Christian piety. Founders who remained unaffected by Deism or who (like John Adams) became conservative Unitarians used terms that clearly conveyed their orthodoxy (“Savior,” “Redeemer,” “Resurrected Christ”).


Finally, one should consider what friends, family, and, above all, clergy said about a Founder’s religious faith. That Washington’s pastors in Philadelphia clearly viewed him as significantly influenced by Deism says more about Washington’s faith than do the opposite views of later writers or the cloudy memories of a few Revolutionary veterans who avowed Washington’s orthodoxy decades after his death.

Although no examination of history can capture the inner faith of any person, these four indicators can help locate the Founders on the religious spectrum. Ethan Allen, for example, appears clearly to have been a non-Christian Deist. James Monroe, a close friend of Paine, remained officially an Episcopalian but may have stood closer to non-Christian Deism than to Christian Deism. Founders who fall into the category of Christian Deists include Washington (whose dedication to Christianity was clear in his own mind), John Adams, and, with some qualifications, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was more influenced by the reason-centred Enlightenment than either Adams or Washington. Orthodox Christians among the Founders include the staunchly Calvinistic Samuel Adams. John Jay (who served as president of the American Bible Society), Elias Boudinot (who wrote a book on the imminent Second Coming of Jesus), and Patrick Henry (who distributed religious tracts while riding circuit as a lawyer) clearly believed in Evangelical Christianity.

Regardless…it’s clear we were not founded as a Christian nation.

[BDKJMU]

at anyone claiming that the Founding Fathers weren‘t Christian.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Fo ... ty-1272214

You should have kept reading. From your same article:

The sweeping disagreement over the religious faiths of the Founders arises from a question of discrepancy. Did their private beliefs differ from the orthodox teachings of their churches? On the surface, most Founders appear to have been orthodox (or “right-believing”) Christians. Most were baptized, listed on church rolls, married to practicing Christians, and frequent or at least sporadic attenders of services of Christian worship. In public statements, most invoked divine assistance.


But the widespread existence in 18th-century America of a school of religious thought called Deism complicates the actual beliefs of the Founders. Drawing from the scientific and philosophical work of such figures as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Isaac Newton, and John Locke, Deists argued that human experience and rationality—rather than religious dogma and mystery—determine the validity of human beliefs. In his widely read The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine, the principal American exponent of Deism, called Christianity “a fable.” Paine, the protégé of Benjamin Franklin, denied “that the Almighty ever did communicate anything to man, by…speech,…language, or…vision.” Postulating a distant deity whom he called “Nature’s God” (a term also used in the Declaration of Independence), Paine declared in a “profession of faith”:


I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and in endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.
Thus, Deism inevitably subverted orthodox Christianity. Persons influenced by the movement had little reason to read the Bible, to pray, to attend church, or to participate in such rites as baptism, Holy Communion, and the laying on of hands (confirmation) by bishops. With the notable exceptions of Abigail Adams and Dolley Madison, Deism seems to have had little effect on women. For example, Martha Washington, the daughters of Thomas Jefferson, and Elizabeth Kortright Monroe and her daughters seem to have held orthodox Christian beliefs.


But Deistic thought was immensely popular in colleges from the middle of the 18th into the 19th century. Thus, it influenced many educated (as well as uneducated) males of the Revolutionary generation. Although such men would generally continue their public affiliation with Christianity after college, they might inwardly hold unorthodox religious views. Depending on the extent to which Americans of Christian background were influenced by Deism, their religious beliefs would fall into three categories: non-Christian Deism, Christian Deism, and orthodox Christianity.


One can differentiate a Founding Father influenced by Deism from an orthodox Christian believer by following certain criteria. Anyone seeking the answer should consider at least the following four points. First, an inquirer should examine the Founder’s church involvement. However, because a colonial church served not only religious but also social and political functions, church attendance or service in a governing body (such as an Anglican vestry, which was a state office in colonies such as Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina) fails to guarantee a Founder’s orthodoxy. But Founders who were believing Christians would nevertheless be more likely to go to church than those influenced by Deism.


The second consideration is an evaluation of the participation of a Founder in the ordinances or sacraments of his church. Most had no choice about being baptized as children, but as adults they did have a choice about participating in communion or (if Episcopalian or Roman Catholic) in confirmation. And few Founders who were Deists would have participated in either rite. George Washington’s refusal to receive communion in his adult life indicated Deistic belief to many of his pastors and peers.


Third, one should note the religious language a Founder used. Non-Christian Deists such as Paine refused to use Judeo-Christian terminology and described God with such expressions as “Providence,” “the Creator,” “the Ruler of Great Events,” and “Nature’s God.” Founders who fall into the category of Christian Deists used Deistic terms for God but sometimes added a Christian dimension—such as “Merciful Providence” or “Divine Goodness.” Yet these Founders did not move further into orthodoxy and employ the traditional language of Christian piety. Founders who remained unaffected by Deism or who (like John Adams) became conservative Unitarians used terms that clearly conveyed their orthodoxy (“Savior,” “Redeemer,” “Resurrected Christ”).


Finally, one should consider what friends, family, and, above all, clergy said about a Founder’s religious faith. That Washington’s pastors in Philadelphia clearly viewed him as significantly influenced by Deism says more about Washington’s faith than do the opposite views of later writers or the cloudy memories of a few Revolutionary veterans who avowed Washington’s orthodoxy decades after his death.

Although no examination of history can capture the inner faith of any person, these four indicators can help locate the Founders on the religious spectrum. Ethan Allen, for example, appears clearly to have been a non-Christian Deist. James Monroe, a close friend of Paine, remained officially an Episcopalian but may have stood closer to non-Christian Deism than to Christian Deism. Founders who fall into the category of Christian Deists include Washington (whose dedication to Christianity was clear in his own mind), John Adams, and, with some qualifications, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was more influenced by the reason-centred Enlightenment than either Adams or Washington. Orthodox Christians among the Founders include the staunchly Calvinistic Samuel Adams. John Jay (who served as president of the American Bible Society), Elias Boudinot (who wrote a book on the imminent Second Coming of Jesus), and Patrick Henry (who distributed religious tracts while riding circuit as a lawyer) clearly believed in Evangelical Christianity.

Regardless…it’s clear we were not founded as a Christian nation.

By stating y

in case anyone wants to argue that the founding fathers were Christians

QUNI88 IMPLIED that NONE were Christian.

I intentionally just did the exact opposite of by stating

in case anyone wants to argue that the Founding fathers weren‘t Christians

even though only some didn’t hold Christian beliefs or didn‘t practice Christianity.

If he had said

in case anyone wants to argue that the Founding Fathers were ALL Christians

I wouldn’t have said anything because not all were.

The fact is most PRACTICED Christianity. I know practicing and actuality are 2 diff things.

Regardless…it’s clear we were not founded as a Christian nation.

True, but we were founded on Judeo Christian principles.

[BDKJMU]

[BDKJMU]